Given how badly things have gone, it seems like the copyright-lawsuit factory that is Prenda Law should be on the verge of shutdown. The lawyers behind the operation were hauled into federal court in Los Angeles, and questioned about possible "fraud on the court." Instead of talking about their litigation tactics, they chose to clam up and plead the Fifth Amendment. Meanwhile, they're dismissing their copyright cases as fast as they can.

Now, Prenda is actually pushing boldly forward with a new set of threat letters—and this new campaign has the potential to be the biggest set of threats yet.

Prenda has been best known for using a variety of shell companies, like AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13, to file copyright cases. It uses discovery in those cases to scoop up as many names connected to IP addresses as possible, accusing defendants of downloading porn files through BitTorrent. But Prenda has also filed some bizarre non-copyright lawsuits, making claims over computer hacking and other offenses. Those lawsuits are lower-profile and harder to find, since they are filed in state courts and can't be found through PACER, the federal courts database. Even though their claims are somewhat muddy, they still lead to discovery.

Now, through one case filed against a single defendant in St. Clair County, Illinois, Prenda has been given an order of sweeping magnitude. Less than two weeks after filing a lawsuit [PDF] against one Christopher Hubbard, Prenda lawyer Paul Duffy submitted an agreed order along with Hubbard's lawyer, asking for discovery to be allowed against hundreds of ISPs. Through this discovery, LW Systems would supposedly be able to track down Hubbard's "co-conspirators." There was seemingly no disagreement among the parties, and the order was quickly signed by the judge.

In the lawsuit, Hubbard is accused of breaking into the computers of LW Systems, an adult content distributor, and installing malware that "destroyed and rendered functionless Plaintiff's authentication systems." The malware Hubbard allegedly installed also made LW Systems computers run slower and use more memory.

The order was signed in late January, and was practically an open invitation for Prenda to get whatever contact information it wanted, from any ISP in America. For instance, since the company may have a backlog of ISP records in copyright cases that it never received, it may be able to get contact information for those defendants through the new case against Hubbard.

After the April 2 hearing, the question remained: would Paul Duffy actually move ahead with this case? After all, Duffy had just pleaded the Fifth in front of a federal judge—admitting that he could actually incriminate himself by answering simple questions about who controlled Prenda, and where the money was going.

Now it's clear that Duffy isn't slowing down. In fact, this may be Prenda's last, hardest push before it gets shut down. The Fight Copyright Trolls blog posted one of Duffy's threat letters today. The blog also reports that "Harassing calls have been placed by [Prenda affiliate] Mark Lutz throughout April." The Duffy letter is dated April 18, on new letterhead reading "Duffy Law Group."

Under a "Frequently Asked Questions" section, Duffy answers the question "How do I make this case go away?" by suggesting a settlement sum of $2,400 be paid before May 3rd. "If you reject or do not respond to our offer, our client will be pleased to proceed forward with litigation." It points to the $222,000 verdict against Jammie Thomas-Rasset as evidence of someone who "rejected a comparable initial settlement offer" and ultimately suffered a stinging loss.

Even though the Hubbard case doesn't make specific allegations about BitTorrent downloading, the threat letter is—indirectly—all about BitTorrent. But the letter makes a variety of confusing statements, noting that LW Systems has a lawsuit that "will allege you violated state and federal computer misuse statutes." It goes on to make threats that mingle hacking and intellectual property claims:

"[LW Systems] is frequently targeted by people who wish to avoid paying for access to adult content. From stealing adult movies or credit card information, to causing computers to crash, such illegal activity is extremely harmful to our client. In fact, it is this rampant theft of online content that has led many industry organizations such as the Recording Industry Association of America, the Motion Picture Association of America, and Internet Service Providers to go after those who trade in BitTorrent movies and other files."

Questions about which side a defense lawyer is really on

How did Prenda manage to get a judge to sign off on such incredibly broad discovery? Two anti-troll activists—defense lawyer Morgan Pietz, and the anonymous author of the blog FightCopyrightTrolls—have an interesting theory. They're questioning whether Adam Urbancyzk, the lawyer defending Christopher Hubbard, is actually working with Prenda.

"NOTE: We would caution you to NOT contact attorney Adam Urbanzcyk," writes Pietz in his blog post about the case. "Due to potential collusion with the plaintiff, it may be that Mr. Urbancyzk and his client Christopher Hubbard could be adverse to you." In at least one case, Urbancyzk told a client to quickly settle for $2,000 and not bother fighting. Between "the insistence that 'Steele will get you earlier or later' [and] the alleged collusion," copyright troll defendants should not trust Urbancyzk, writes the author of Fight Copyright Trolls.

To some, Urbancyzk's cases look like they aren't true "defenses" at all, primarily because he has struck deals with Prenda lawyers allowing for broad discovery—and quickly. Getting that kind of discovery basically gives Prenda everything they need to write another batch of threat letters.

If the allegations are true, it wouldn't be the first time that Prenda has been accused of colluding with a person who was essentially set up as a "sham" lawsuit in order to lead to more discovery.

Ars contacted Urbancyzk to get his take on these accusations but didn't hear back. We'll update the story if we do hear back from him. We've also reached out to Duffy, who has declined to speak to us about any of his cases thus far.

Correction: A previous headline called the lawsuit a "Minnesota hacking lawsuit." An earlier case involving Prenda and alleged collusion was based in Minnesota; the LW Systems case is based in St. Clair County, Illinois.

120 Reader Comments

Does colluding with defense lawyers reach into criminal penalties? It seems like they're only digging themselves an ever-deepening hole, and any money that they extract from people before the hammer comes down will only cause them to fall farther.

I have now reached the point where I check ARS in hopes of there being news about Prenda. It seems like every new development brought up just adds to the craziness that is going on. Starting to think this may become movie material by the end of this if it continues the way its going.

I really have no idea what is going on here. Why the hell did a judge just let someone roll right over jurisprudence? Even if the defense attorney agreed to Dufy's request for discovery, why would a judge not use his brain for a moment and realize this was WAAAAY to sweeping of a motion?

As for collusion, I'm not sure that can be easily proven or is even technically happening here. But if it is, I'm pretty sure there will be a lot of pain for someone.

After all, Duffy had just pleaded the Fifth in front of a federal judge—admitting that he could actually incriminate himself by answering simple questions about who controlled Prenda, and where the money was going.

That just seems like a huge red flag to me. Maybe the questions could be worded against them but if basic questions can incriminate a person it seems odd that they wouldn't be doing anything illegal. I guess I lack the expertise but the 5th seems like it should have some limitations in effectiveness.

Alas, while we have a lot of circumstantial evidence in Illinois, there is no smoking gun. Until we have 100% proof, we should be careful not smuggle opinions as facts.

There is also LW Systems v. Juan Leonard case in the Arizona State court, and it may be collusive, but I didn't have time and resources to investigate that one. State courts are XX-century opaque. If anyone with the access to the Maricopa county court can shed the light on that one, I will appreciate.

I really have no idea what is going on here. Why the hell did a judge just let someone roll right over jurisprudence? Even if the defense attorney agreed to Dufy's request for discovery, why would a judge not use his brain for a moment and realize this was WAAAAY to sweeping of a motion?

If the defense isn't opposing it, it's reasonable that the judge won't scrutinize it very closely. And there could be a rational basis for such a one-sided settlement - the defendant may be very guilty, easily proven so, and doesn't care about the settlement details as long as it knocks a few hundred off the payment and makes it all go away. That'd probably be a far more likely possibility if not for Prenda's involvement, though you never know what's what when they're involved.

I really have no idea what is going on here. Why the hell did a judge just let someone roll right over jurisprudence? Even if the defense attorney agreed to Dufy's request for discovery, why would a judge not use his brain for a moment and realize this was WAAAAY to sweeping of a motion?

If the defense isn't opposing it, it's reasonable that the judge won't scrutinize it very closely. And there could be a rational basis for such a one-sided settlement - the defendant may be very guilty, easily proven so, and doesn't care about the settlement details as long as it knocks a few hundred off the payment and makes it all go away. That'd probably be a far more likely possibility if not for Prenda's involvement, though you never know what's what when they're involved.

That's fine for the defendant but seems irresponsible for the judge to allow the defendant's conduct and bad decisions (whether in the course of their defense or in the activities that led to the need for that defense) to affect the privacy of un-represented third parties.

You do realize that Prenda et al are facing some major cash outlays in the near future. Thus they will be looking for any kind of income. Getting a wide open order like this gives them the ability to get a large number of new targets for quick cash demands. Thus their motivation for continuing.

I have no reached the point where I check ARS in hopes of there being news about Prenda. It seems like every new development brought up just adds to the craziness that is going on. Starting to think this may become movie material by the end of this if it continues the way its going.

No one would believe it, and you wouldn't be able to fit it into a couple of hours anyway. Miniseries, maybe.

After all the Prenda related reading.. I recall a lawyer from one of the lists published by someone trying to help out people being attacked by the copyright trolls - instead of helping those that contacted him, kept informing them they needed to settle with S&H/Prenda immediately. When those that put up the list found out what he was doing.. they kicked him off the list. This lawyer may be that same snake..

You do realize that Prenda et al are facing some major cash outlays in the near future. Thus they will be looking for any kind of income. Getting a wide open order like this gives them the ability to get a large number of new targets for quick cash demands. Thus their motivation for continuing.

Somehow, the need to generate large amounts of cash now to fund future expenses seems like a new twist on Ponzi (which, in part, requires future geometric expansion to cover earlier activities), in which instead of acquiring new capital from investors freely seeking big returns, capital is sought, using the legal system as an extortative tool, from unwilling defendants seeking to limit future adverse judgements.

The sooner we fully understand what is going on here, and give it a name (suggest Prenda Ponzi?), the sooner we can adjust the system to prevent such seeming abuse of it.

Note: ICIJ dot org has records of many offshore shell companies from the ground zero of the offshore financial business (British Virgin Is. And Singapore, with documentary evidence to interfacing legal and financial institutions everywhere), up through IIRC 2009. Would bring another very interesting dimension to this saga if they have anything relating to the circuits of artists known as Prenda law and its affiliates.

The best thing Adam Urbancyzk can do now is switch sides and hand over the evidence. If he's found colluding with Prenda, he's going down with the rest of the gang and hard.

My guess is that greed has blinded him to the gross stupidity of his actions. Hovever unlike Prenda letters, the heat isn't going to go away.

In the off chance that Adam is reading this, your financial future as well as your liberty is in real jeopardy. How can you support yourself and your family if you get disbarred, fined and/or jailed? It's not a question of if you get caught, but when. Time is running out and the wrong choice will ruin you.

I was merely pointing out that it was not outside the realm of possibility.I mean there could be all sorts of good reasons for a defense lawyer to offer no defense for his client, and not oppose attempting to add a huge unknown number of more defendants to the case.Maybe he likes the courtroom to be very full and cozy....Maybe he isn't very good at this lawyering thing...Maybe the underpants gnome mafia is holding his cat hostage and he is acting under duress...Maybe he is engaged in some behavior that is unseemly...Maybe he has a master plan to lure them into making a fatal mistake by adding a vent pipe to the plans of their super weapon so some backwater living kid can rise up to leading a band of rebels and blow the thing up later...

No one knows for sure... Its like that moment where you think you smell dog doo, everyone should look on the bottom of their shoes to find out where the stink is coming from before tracking crap all over...I'm just pointing out something in this smells like dog crap and my shoes are clean...

Since this whole Prenda thing is so much layer-over-layer of inventive solutions to shield of external people from seeing what is going on in the background, I can't stop wondering:

What if not only the defendants lawyer is in on it, but the defendant as well.What if there was no case at all, but they just invented and bought a case from scratch.Just let a fictive defendant settle for sum x and return him 3x under the table.That way, for 2x you have just bought yourself access to ISP questioning ...Somehow from a villain's standpoint it seems safer to include the first defendant as well, then less chance that he will object or complain.

Not saying it happened like that, they might as well just screwed an easy target.

Why isn't DoJ investigating Prenda, and if it is why hasn't it shut them down yet?

Come to think of it why aren't states attourney generals doing it too.Esspecially in Minnesota and Illinois where a lot of the action seems to be happening.

"What’s more, we’re going to aggressively protect our intellectual property. Our single greatest asset is the innovation and the ingenuity and creativity of the American people. It is essential to our prosperity and it will only become more so in this century. But it’s only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can’t just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor. There’s nothing wrong with other people using our technologies, we welcome it – we just want to make sure that it’s licensed, and that American businesses are getting paid appropriately."

Since this whole Prenda thing is so much layer-over-layer of inventive solutions to shield of external people from seeing what is going on in the background, I can't stop wondering:

What if not only the defendants lawyer is in on it, but the defendant as well.What if there was no case at all, but they just invented and bought a case from scratch.Just let a fictive defendant settle for sum x and return him 3x under the table.That way, for 2x you have just bought yourself access to ISP questioning ...Somehow from a villain's standpoint it seems safer to include the first defendant as well, then less chance that he will object or complain.

Not saying it happened like that, they might as well just screwed an easy target.

This sort of play, if it were happening (we still lack a evidence... so far), allows them to avoid Does trying to make motions. We are back to the your not a party to this case because you've not been named Catch-22. Some courts have ruled that subscribers have no interest in a case seeking their information from an ISP... so I can't stop them from getting my name, and I have to wait till they name me before I can challenge the case... but in the meantime I can look forward to letters and calls telling me how I can "cheaply" settle this case for less than hiring a lawyer to represent me before a court where I might not be named...

Really? People think that Christopher Hubbard's [largest] co-conspirator might be Prenda Law? A company that profits come from extorting settlements out of presumably innocent people? I would be remiss if I didn't point out that any other "co-conspirator" might be innocent of any crime as well. If Mr. Hubbard is accused of hacking the LW Systems' computers, it's quite plausible that he hacked other computers to hijack and turn into bots to assist in his attacks.

Really? People think that Christopher Hubbard's [largest] co-conspirator might be Prenda Law? A company that profits come from extorting settlements out of presumably innocent people? I would be remiss if I didn't point out that any other "co-conspirator" might be innocent of any crime as well. If Mr. Hubbard is accused of hacking the LW Systems' computers, it's quite plausible that he hacked other computers to hijack and turn into bots to assist in his attacks.

They would merely claim that those people were negligent and should face fines of $10-25K for not securing their computers to protect LW.No stop laughing... they do this sort of thing...

I came across Urbanczyk a couple weeks back and I discovered something interesting about him via his website, he lists his home address as his office address. His address is in downtown Chicago and when I saw it I couldn't for the life of me picture a law office at that address. Wanting to make sure I wasn't just getting my buildings confused I did a quick check on google and sure enough, apartment building.

Also this isn't the first time he's done this, he's done the same thing in cases where Prenda is the plaintiff counsel before. Also this Hubbard case is the first one I'm aware of where the person's name isn't a name that would really stand out. Indeed in a couple cases I wondered if the person really existed at all or if they did did they know their name was being used in a legal proceeding. Unlike a criminal proceeding in a civil matter the actual defendant need not be present, at least early on. And given the tactics Prenda uses, I wouldn't put it past them.

Really? People think that Christopher Hubbard's [largest] co-conspirator might be Prenda Law? A company that profits come from extorting settlements out of presumably innocent people? I would be remiss if I didn't point out that any other "co-conspirator" might be innocent of any crime as well. If Mr. Hubbard is accused of hacking the LW Systems' computers, it's quite plausible that he hacked other computers to hijack and turn into bots to assist in his attacks.

Thing is, Hubbard's defense attorney has done the same thing in apparently every case where the plaintiff is represented by Prenda, including copyright cases. Also Prenda's claims of hacking seem to be something they can't ever really prove, indeed it seems they equate password sharing with hacking and there's some lingering doubt as to whether or not they're enticing people into doing it by one of a few possible scenarios.

I really have no idea what is going on here. Why the hell did a judge just let someone roll right over jurisprudence? Even if the defense attorney agreed to Dufy's request for discovery, why would a judge not use his brain for a moment and realize this was WAAAAY to sweeping of a motion?

As for collusion, I'm not sure that can be easily proven or is even technically happening here. But if it is, I'm pretty sure there will be a lot of pain for someone.

Collusion can at least by the fact that it seems in every case where Urbanczyk is defense counsel and Prenda is counsel for the plaintiff things follow the same course of events. Indeed it seems Urbanczyk offers no actual real defense in these cases at all. Also his "office", it's actually his apartment, is real close to Prenda's offices here in Chicago. As for proving collusion, a subpoena or two could take care of that issue.